User talk:Susfele

Due to personal issues Susfele's editing will be sporadic for the foreseeable future.

Hello, Susfele! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

{{helpme}} Hi. I nominated Kohler and bandura theories", for deletion because it contained only the phrase "no idea". After I had done that, I realized I should probably have nominated it for speedy deletion. What should I do now? Thanks --Susfele (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, don't worry. —fetch·comms 23:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion, and I'll make sure it goes. I'll tidy up the other stuff; the AfD wasn't transcluded anyway. No problems, cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference:

• Maybe you should enable the twinke gadget in your user preferences - that makes it very easy to nominate pages for deletion the correct way.

• For quick help, try this or this. (Or just to pop in and say "hi").  Chzz  ►  00:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the article on Brighton High School is a hoax? Dwight Burdette

Answered at Talk:Brighton High School (Brighton, Michigan)#Hoax issues--Susfele (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should put my revisions back. The sections I deleted had little support and were full of weasel words that made the article sexist. For example, the original article stated that there was more stigma for female alcoholics and provided no support. That's just one opinion. If you asked most people they would say it's a bigger deal if a man is an alcoholic as men are expected to be providers and alcoholism interferes with that. Also, there's more social pressure for men to drink. I'm disappointed in this site. I don't think my revisions should have been undone when what I deleted was so obviously inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.25.194 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not qualified to comment on the accuracy of the original article or your statement that most people would think it's a bigger deal if a man is an alcoholic. I reverted your edits because you offered no explanation on the article's talk page for your cuts, and the passages you cut had citations. Please see WP:VERIFY. The appropriate place to discuss the accuracy of the article is on the article's talk page. There already is a section there called Gender and alcoholism. Talk about your concerns there. Offer verifiable sources for your opinions. Try to work toward consensus. Then make edits to the article, with appropriate citations. Your edits are much more likely to stay around long-term. Regards, --Susfele (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done an editor review for you at Wikipedia:Editor review/Susfele. I hope that you find the review useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it. Regards, -Reconsider! 08:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted the IP at WP:AIV. We'll see if they get blocked... Dismas|^(talk) 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have a new IP... Dismas|^(talk) 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I requested it late last night. It's protected for two weeks. Dismas|^(talk) 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cc Adi 8.38: ‘Chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana   If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee.   Cc Adi 8.40: Vrindavana-dasa-pade koti namaskara aiche grantha kari’ tenho tarila samsara   I offer millions of obeisances unto the lotus feet of Vrindavana dasa Thakura. No one else could write such a wonderful book for the deliverance of all fallen souls.

The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and 1000 such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa (day of Brahma). Kalpa is 4-320-000-000 years. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for 1-000-000's of such kalpas: 4-320-000-000 * 1-000-000 * n.

[Reincarnation] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.5.86 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not proselyte on my talk page. Thank you. --Susfele (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Susfele. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I hope this will achieve something. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Taztouzi has been indefinitely blocked, so that is some progress. However, it remains to be seen whether he/she comes back under a different name. The page protection has been reduced from one month to three days, which looks to me like a mistake. There have previously been two week-long page protections, which have failed to stop the problem, so anything less than a month seems to me unlikely to be effective. I have asked the admin who reduced the time to change it back. Other than that at the moment all I can suggest is that we wait and see if the the problem comes back and, if it does, ask for Admin intervention again, mentioning what happened this time. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a request that he be blocked earlier today, mentioning that there was a report at WP:3RRNB. I think the admin who reduced page protection to three days had intended to fully protect it for three days. I mentioned to him that Taztouzi had edited the page an hour after he (the admin) had "increased the protection level" but his response was he was trying to allow time for the 3RR report to be acted on. I didn't realize that the semi-protection was going to run out in three days. I'm really glad you caught that and asked the admin to change it back! Do you know how to file sock-puppet reports? I'm guessing that is what will come next. I don't know how to generate the little numbers that point to diffs yet. Thank you so very much for working on this. Susfele (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can produce a sock puppet report, and I have thought of doing so. However, at the moment I am not sure that would be the best, so I am keeping it in reserve. I'll try to remember to tell you how to do diffs later, but now I don't have time. Feel free to remind me on my talk page if I don't tell you within 12 hours or so. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I see the error in page protection has been corrected. Progress! Maybe we will get there in the end!

(2) Now for "the little numbers that point to diffs". Assuming you know how to view a diff of a page, you do that and then simply copy the URL from your browser address box, and paste it between [ and ]. So, for example, for the diff between the last time you edited this talk page and the previous time you edited it, the URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASusfele&action=historysubmit&diff=367667914&oldid=365240934. So you paste it as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASusfele&action=historysubmit&diff=367667914&oldid=365240934], which shows up as [1]. I hope this answers what you wanted to know. If not, ask me for furtehr clarification on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Susfele. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I said above that if the problem comes back we would have to "ask for Admin intervention again". Since then I have been nominated for adminship. Whether it happens depends on how much support the proposal gets, but if it does then it should help with this case. So much more helpful to be able to take action immediately, rather than file a request, wait for a response, possibly get a response that is not very helpful, make another request, wait again... JamesBWatson (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support your candidacy wholeheartedly, and I tried to make that clear over at the nomination page. I hope you get it! Not just because it would be helpful in the Mister World difficulty, but because it would be a good thing for Wikipedia as a whole to have an admin of your caliber. Thanks for letting me know of your candidacy. Susfele (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesBWatson. There has been more vandalism at Mister World 2010. The relevant little number is [2]. In the spirit of trying to stand on my own two feet, I filed a sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taztouzi. Would you take a look at it and add anything you think it needs? I also put a note on Taztouz's talk page apprising him of the SPI. I guess I better copy it to Tazouz1's talk page, too. Thanks very much. Susfele (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check contributions from [3] for subtle vandalism. Ha! Square brackets work for more than diffs! Excellent. Susfele (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Excirial,

I just want to assure you that my recent involvement on the Ashley Madison article was boneheaded, but not intended to promote the AshleyMadisonSucks.com blog site. I noticed that someone kept replacing the link to AshleyMadisonSucks.com with a link to AshleyMadisonSucks.info, a website that promoted Ashley Madison. The latter link was counter to the text of the paragraph, so I reverted the change several times. I am a relatively new editor, and I didn't stop to ask myself what that blog link was doing in the article in the first place, nor did I consult the article's talk page the way I should have. Well, it's a learning experience. Susfele (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh trust me, i wasn't questioning your edits at all since it was quite clear you were doing vandalism patrol. The IP's were removing the criticism section, and together with your explanation on the .info domain it is quite clear that they were just trying to take out the criticism entirely. On the other hand some of the other editors seem related to the .com domain which represents the other side of the spectrum, resulting in a "neat" POV war being fought out on the article. I guess that i will have to keep an eye on that article for the next few weeks to see that things go out of hand.

Besides this, i noticed that you are quite active in vandalism patrol, and that your reverts seem to be good as well. So i would ask: Have you ever considered requesting the Rollback permission? It is similar to Twinkle's rollback, with the exception that it is a lot faster (Twinkle's version is actually a slow software emulation of the original permission). Rollback is also a requirement for using Huggle, which is arguably the most popular anti-vandalism tool currently in use. It is radically different from user scripts such as twinkle or lupin, but it allows for extremely easy and fast vandalism patrol - It automatically selects the appropriate warning level, it can be configured for automatic reporting to WP:AIAV and it only requires the use of the keyboard (And why do i feel like a second-hand car salesman after i summed that up?). Either way - you will likely benefit from the actual rollback privilege as it works flawlessly with Twinkle as well, and it may be worth the time to give huggle a test run once you have that permission. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that rollback and Huggle would be useful to you, Susfele, and that you would use them responsibly, so I encourage you to take up the invitation. A word of warning though. It is very easy with Huggle to make mistakes, reverting and warning as vandalism when the edits in question were not vandalism. It is a tool to be used with great care. I have learnt this by making mistakes, and I know of other editors who make more mistakes with Huggle. I really do think you would make good use of it, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and the words of warning. I had been dithering whether to ask for rollback rights or not. Having two different people encourage me tipped the scale and I have made the request. Thanks! Susfele (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cite note I made on pizza delivery page was a fan-made site because the newspaper's website has been shut down. I have a picture of the article, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.115.22 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've responded at your talk page. Susfele (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive comment on my talk page Susfele after reverting your edit. I have noted that although my favorite Linux distro now uses the BFS scheduler it is rarely refferred to using the full name. An example is this article: Spotlight on Linux: PCLinuxOS 2010 | Linux Journal LAMurakami (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments. This user has added edits which were exactly - and I mean exactly - the same as were added by the blocked sockpuppets in question; and only after the previous puppet was blocked. Leaving aside the edits you quote, look at the others. S/he can appeal further if s/he wishes; talk page edit is not blocked. While I will recluse myself from further decision, I do not feel that an unblock is appropriate purely on the edits you quote. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Susfele. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review the definition of vandalism as it relates to Wikipedia. You also need to read the notability criteria for music albums. Then you need to remove the vandalism warning you issued on my talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Iscrewed up. I reverted my reversion before I saw your message here. I apologize. Susfele (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise I couldn't find a specific place where users can report libellous edits for administrator attention. I left a message on the Project talk page, so maybe someone else can point us in the right direction. In the meantime you can post on my talk page if you see something you think should be hidden. ... discospinster _talk 03:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I forgot I have to use the server default time in preferences as opposed to my browser settings in order for the contrib/history times and the timestamps to match up. · Andonic ^Contact 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Susfele. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think 88.83.20.79 (talk) is just a newbie who needs a little guidance on how to start a new topic. In the end, it may not be notable, but I think a vandalism warning might be a bit much per WP:BITE. Please don't take offense, I intend this as a friendly note. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. Susfele (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Netalarm^talk 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is scary. (This is about User:Safetycups, right?). I'm not trying to dodge responsibility for my actions with Huggle, but I can't figure out how I made that report. He didn't have enough warnings for it to happen automatically. From his contributions he made only one edit. I wish I could figure this out so I wouldn't do it again. Thanks very much for the heads up. Susfele (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I just thought I'd notify you about this in case you weren't familiar with AIV guidelines. The report may have been sent because Safetycups created an article that was subsequently deleted (Charlie Jobson) or because of his inappropriate post on his user page, but that's unlikely. I'm not sure why this was sent, because there are no incidents automatically attached to the report. Anyway, no worries about this, weird things are bound to happen. Cya around! Netalarm^talk 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider! has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

. Nice work with RCP. -Reconsider! 11:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I needed that! Susfele (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clementina has given you a salad! Salads promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the goodness of salads by tossing one for someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit! → Clementina [ Scribble ] 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the goodness of salad by adding {{subst:Givesalad}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dear Susfele, as you've already received a cheeseburger, I thought you might enjoy a healthy salad as well. Thank you for (manually) cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page. :) It's much appreciated! Love, → Clementina [ Scribble ] 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the salad! Just what I needed. Susfele (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will read the guideline and try to help. Susfele (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add stats until the end of the season. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message about Mister World 2010. I have semi-protected it. I hate protecting an article for long periods because of the collateral damage to innocent would-be editors, but it seems nothing else will do any good. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the page. I do understand that long-term protection runs counter to the Wikipedia open editing philosophy. I've been hoping that whatever benefit or gratification Taztouzi gets from inserting misinformation would expire, but that seems not to be happening. Thank you again. Susfele (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help wondering what kind of peson can be so single-minded about something like this over such a long period. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response and learned about your omission of what I believe is an interesting insight for the Antique Olive typeface. If Roger Excoffon were alive, I think he would have appreciated that. I had every right to throw that in, just as you had every right to edit that and tell me why. Thank you for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.247.18.103 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have a reliable source discussing the resemblance to olives of the curved letter forms of Antique Olive, then I would encourage you to restore your edit as long as you cite your source. If, however, this is a personal insight then the edit violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. As the typeface was named for the typefoundry and not the fruit of the olive tree, your insight seems unlikely to be notable.Susfele (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SomeTameGazelle1stAm.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Susfele. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Susfele. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]